(SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 27, 2025

Docket2:24-cv-02351

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL JOSEPH ORTIZ, No. 2:24-cv-02351-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD OF 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES SECURITY, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE 15 ACT Defendant. 16 (Doc. No. 19)

17 18 On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff Samuel Joseph Ortiz filed this action seeking review of a 19 final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 10, 2025, 20 the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant 21 to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. No. 17.) On January 17, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation with the 22 court in which the parties agree that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses under 23 the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $5,679.86, and 24 no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Doc. No. 19.) 25 Good cause appearing, and pursuant to the parties’ January 17, 2025 stipulation, the court 26 orders as follows: 27 1. Pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees 28 and expenses in the amount of $5,679.86; 1 2. No costs are awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1920; 2 3. After the issuance of this order, the government shall consider the assignment of 3 the EAJA attorney’s fees to Plaintiff's counsel; 4 a. Pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any such 5 assignment will depend on whether the attorney’s fees are subject to any 6 offset allowed under the United States Department of Treasury’s (“the 7 DOT”) Offset Program; 8 b. Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the DOT determines that 9 Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 10 payment of attorney’s fees to be made directly to Plaintiffs counsel, 11 Francesco Paulo Benavides; 12 4. Whether the payment of attorney’s fees is made payable to Plaintiff or to his 13 counsel, the check will be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel’s mailing address at: 14 Francesco Paulo Benavides Law Offices of Francesco 15 1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor 16 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 24, 2025 RY <— 20 Dena Coggins United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL JOSEPH ORTIZ, No. 2:24-cv-02351-DC-DMC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION FOR THE AWARD OF 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL ATTORNEY’S FEES AND EXPENSES SECURITY, UNDER THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE 15 ACT Defendant. 16 (Doc. No. 19)

17 18 On August 28, 2024, Plaintiff Samuel Joseph Ortiz filed this action seeking review of a 19 final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. (Doc. No. 1.) On January 10, 2025, 20 the matter was remanded to the Commissioner of Social Security for further proceedings pursuant 21 to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). (Doc. No. 17.) On January 17, 2025, the parties filed a stipulation with the 22 court in which the parties agree that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney’s fees and expenses under 23 the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), in the amount of $5,679.86, and 24 no costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920. (Doc. No. 19.) 25 Good cause appearing, and pursuant to the parties’ January 17, 2025 stipulation, the court 26 orders as follows: 27 1. Pursuant to the EAJA, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), Plaintiff is awarded attorney’s fees 28 and expenses in the amount of $5,679.86; 1 2. No costs are awarded under 28 U.S.C. § 1920; 2 3. After the issuance of this order, the government shall consider the assignment of 3 the EAJA attorney’s fees to Plaintiff's counsel; 4 a. Pursuant to the decision in Astrue v. Ratliff, 560 U.S. 586 (2010), any such 5 assignment will depend on whether the attorney’s fees are subject to any 6 offset allowed under the United States Department of Treasury’s (“the 7 DOT”) Offset Program; 8 b. Fees shall be made payable to Plaintiff, but if the DOT determines that 9 Plaintiff does not owe a federal debt, then the government shall cause the 10 payment of attorney’s fees to be made directly to Plaintiffs counsel, 11 Francesco Paulo Benavides; 12 4. Whether the payment of attorney’s fees is made payable to Plaintiff or to his 13 counsel, the check will be mailed to Plaintiff's counsel’s mailing address at: 14 Francesco Paulo Benavides Law Offices of Francesco 15 1990 N. California Blvd., 8th Floor 16 Walnut Creek, CA 94596

17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ January 24, 2025 RY <— 20 Dena Coggins United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Ortiz v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-ortiz-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack